In an upcoming PEOPLE magazine article (April 13, 2009 issue), Jeff Truesdell writes about Pets Left Behind due to the national economic crisis. The focus of the article is on the Sacramento SPCA shelter. It notes that this one shelter alone saw almost 1,000 more pets given up in 2008 than in the prior year; taking in as many as 200 animals each week. The silver lining for this one shelter is that approximately 71% of the dogs brought in find new homes or go to other rescue organizations. This is an open shelter so they take in all kinds of pets including those deemed not adoptable so this is a fairly good "save rate."
The article ends with a woman giving up her two Lhasa apsos. It says that she may call to find out if the dogs have been adopted but then she says that she is not sure she wants to know. Hence, she understood that euthanasia may be what becomes of her family pets.
It is heartbreaking to read how people feel the pressure of taking care of a pet or taking care of their children. And so much of our current legislation, especially mandatory spay/neuter bills and limit laws, push more and more families to have to make these difficult decisions. It just seems so contrary to the goals of those who are concerned about the welfare and health of all animals. It seems irresponsible to be putting these animals at more risk by pushing these types of legislative bills.
SB 250 has the goal of saving animal lives and thus saving California taxpayers dollars. But the truth is, more families will be compelled to surrender their pets because we have no statewide system in place for low cost/no cost spay-neuter programs. We are seeing mandatory spay/neuter fail in the City of Los Angeles because the resources are simply not there. Rather than writing bills that crimilize otherwise law abiding citizens who are actually good pet owners, we should be looking to statewide measures to encourage pet ownership and educate responsible care of the health and well being of all Californian animals including spay/neuter programs.
The goal to reduce the number of animals in our shelters can be achieved through positive programs and education. We have seen in recent years with more and more education being available to the public and more resources utilized, a downward trend in impounds/surrenders/euthanasia. Sadly, the rates are going back up, but not due to bad breeders or bad owners. Just the opposite-- it is due to families having to make difficult financial decisions.
SB 250 is irresponsible especially in these tough economic times. Let us use what resources we have helping people keep their families together including their pets, not push them to the point where they need to surrender their animals because they run the risk of not complying with the law.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
The Epidemic Is Spreading
When AB 1634 first hit the state of California, the dog community was unprepared. Those that introduced the idea of mandated forced sterilization of all pets had several years to work on their proposal and develop their arguments. They knew where to hit: the heart with the stories of euthanasia and the overburdened animal shelters and the pocketbook with the amount of dollars being spent every year on euthanasia and the overburdened animal shelters.
As a community, the dog fancy came back grassroots style with the facts. Although the emotion was there (we are talking about our dogs; a HUGE part of each of our families), we kept it checked and let the truth speak. Too often, unfortunately, the truth was smothered by the twisted figures used by those who support mandatatory sterilization and the pleas for "do the right thing."
My heart goes out to every animal in the shelter especially those who are too ill, too old, or too much of a behavior issue to even be considered for homes. My altruistic nature would love to open up a facility and never have a single animal killed. But this is not the reality so the best that I can do is be sure that the animals I breed are well provided-- whelping to grave-- and that I take care to ensure that every prospective family passes all of my "tests." This is the small part that I can do to be sure that none of the puppies I bring into this world will ever be a burden on the system.
Every time a mandatory spay/neuter bill is presented throughout our nation, the dog fancy speaks out about what we are doing to help the system and the American Kennel Club sends out an alert. I have it memorized by now because at last count, I believe there are 38 states with some sort of mandates either on the books as law or proposing such. It is an epidemic!
The source is not Judie Mancuso or Ed Boks. Neither of them created the idea of sterilizing pets but they were willing enough pawns to carry the torch for the more extreme animal rights organizations. It is a seed that had been planted years ago and now has caught on like wild fire.
It seems that at every turn there is a new proposal somewhere.
One day, I hope, legislative bodies will realize that mandating restrictions on basic property rights and the love of our best friends-- our dogs-- will only result in more heartbreak.
Now, the sad question-- do they even care?
As a community, the dog fancy came back grassroots style with the facts. Although the emotion was there (we are talking about our dogs; a HUGE part of each of our families), we kept it checked and let the truth speak. Too often, unfortunately, the truth was smothered by the twisted figures used by those who support mandatatory sterilization and the pleas for "do the right thing."
My heart goes out to every animal in the shelter especially those who are too ill, too old, or too much of a behavior issue to even be considered for homes. My altruistic nature would love to open up a facility and never have a single animal killed. But this is not the reality so the best that I can do is be sure that the animals I breed are well provided-- whelping to grave-- and that I take care to ensure that every prospective family passes all of my "tests." This is the small part that I can do to be sure that none of the puppies I bring into this world will ever be a burden on the system.
Every time a mandatory spay/neuter bill is presented throughout our nation, the dog fancy speaks out about what we are doing to help the system and the American Kennel Club sends out an alert. I have it memorized by now because at last count, I believe there are 38 states with some sort of mandates either on the books as law or proposing such. It is an epidemic!
The source is not Judie Mancuso or Ed Boks. Neither of them created the idea of sterilizing pets but they were willing enough pawns to carry the torch for the more extreme animal rights organizations. It is a seed that had been planted years ago and now has caught on like wild fire.
It seems that at every turn there is a new proposal somewhere.
One day, I hope, legislative bodies will realize that mandating restrictions on basic property rights and the love of our best friends-- our dogs-- will only result in more heartbreak.
Now, the sad question-- do they even care?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR
Those who support mandatory spay/neuter as a way to reduce the shelter population, although noble in cause, are missing the fact that there are no connections between dogs in the shelters and dogs being born. It is obvious that Judie Mancuso and supporters of mandatory spay/neuter have the agenda of deterring people from breeding their pets. In their hearts, they believe that if there were no domestic animals born in the state of California, there would be no animals in our shelters and therefore, no euthanasia.
However, reducing the supply of California bred animals is not going to reduce the demand for California pets.
Low volume or hobbyist breeders take the time to carefully consider each breeding and evaluate each family's ability to care for and sustain a life long relationship with a pet. There even exists some commercial breeders who take great care to do the same sort of sifting and education of potential new homes. If we deter good quality breeders from producing good quality pets, where will Californians get their pets?
1. Internet sales where they have no opportunity to visit and view the parents or develop a relationship with the "breeder."
2. Puppy brokers where large volumes of puppies are imported from out of state and sold for profit by "breeders" who are not even affected by mandatory spay/neuter ordinances because they do not own any adult or intact dogs. All of their business is done through imports.
3. Substandard commercial "breeders" who do not take the time or care to screen owners or work through pedigrees and genetics of breeding animals.
4. Backyard "breeders" who have the litter because they happen to have two dogs and since they are "under the radar" and do not advertise in the newspapers or show or work their dogs, are rarely visible as puppy sellers.
5. The shelter. And while I support adoptions from shelters, I also know that the shelters do not have the supply of puppies and kittens that Californians desire or demand. And so, families will go to the other options above which will only put more animals into the shelters that are not adoptable.
The focus for reducing euthanasia in California needs to be on reviewing the issues BEFORE developing a solution. My grandmother called it "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
There are models of successful Animal Services programs where communities have built bridges rather than burning them and where it is not about "control." Isn't it time that we look beyond the extremes and develop a plan of action that does not toss out the good with the bad?
However, reducing the supply of California bred animals is not going to reduce the demand for California pets.
Low volume or hobbyist breeders take the time to carefully consider each breeding and evaluate each family's ability to care for and sustain a life long relationship with a pet. There even exists some commercial breeders who take great care to do the same sort of sifting and education of potential new homes. If we deter good quality breeders from producing good quality pets, where will Californians get their pets?
1. Internet sales where they have no opportunity to visit and view the parents or develop a relationship with the "breeder."
2. Puppy brokers where large volumes of puppies are imported from out of state and sold for profit by "breeders" who are not even affected by mandatory spay/neuter ordinances because they do not own any adult or intact dogs. All of their business is done through imports.
3. Substandard commercial "breeders" who do not take the time or care to screen owners or work through pedigrees and genetics of breeding animals.
4. Backyard "breeders" who have the litter because they happen to have two dogs and since they are "under the radar" and do not advertise in the newspapers or show or work their dogs, are rarely visible as puppy sellers.
5. The shelter. And while I support adoptions from shelters, I also know that the shelters do not have the supply of puppies and kittens that Californians desire or demand. And so, families will go to the other options above which will only put more animals into the shelters that are not adoptable.
The focus for reducing euthanasia in California needs to be on reviewing the issues BEFORE developing a solution. My grandmother called it "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
There are models of successful Animal Services programs where communities have built bridges rather than burning them and where it is not about "control." Isn't it time that we look beyond the extremes and develop a plan of action that does not toss out the good with the bad?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS?
As we continue to follow the meltdown of subsidized spay and neuter in the City of Los Angeles, several things are clear. Unless someone starts to view this as a business problem and determines appropriate metrics, we are dooming ourselves to continual failure while we penalize responsible dog owners.
CDOC said from the outset that it is the uneducated and disadvantaged that are most likely to be prosecuted in this MSN frenzy. And they are the people least likely to be able to be able to afford the surgery, $245 in city shelter-sponsored clinics unless you have a voucher.
So think about this.
1. Where are the dogs coming from that are in the shelters? According to Ed Boks last Friday, 35% are turned in by their owners. These people are probably not turning in healthy, well-adjusted and much loved dogs. Those stay with people through good times and bad. Rather LAAS is getting old, infirm, socially-challenged and sick animals. And statistically 83% of owner turn-ins are not deemed "heathy and adoptable". Indeed, some are turned in to AS just for euthanasia.
2. Are the dogs that go into LAAS intact or neutered. This information is not tracked per Boks because they are all altered when they leave. But that is not true. LAAS unites a number with their owners. So let's look at this subset. Whoops, not tracked.
3. How many of the dogs that come in are licensed? Whoops, not tracked.
4. Do the LAAS people check all the registries to try and reunite dogs with owners? Whoops, no information available on that.
There is absolutely no nexus between the reproductive status of OWNED dogs and dogs in the shelter. There is probably some correlation between roaming intact dogs and increased breeding; we saw a huge drop in shelter dogs after the Vincent Act was passed. Because shelter dogs are far more likely to be back in the shelter than privately acquired dogs.
Let's enforce the laws that we have (leash laws) and write some new ones that require positive permanent identification and require that after a dog is picked up by AS a third time, it will not be returned to its owned until it is altered. Because that dog doesn't have a responsible owner.
But instead of managing this like a benevolent business, we let emotion get in the way and make decisions that exacerbate the problem and divide people who should be working together. The proponents of MSN and Boks could get their minds around these two things.
1. There is no automatic connection between reproductive status and actually reproducing in owned dogs.
2. People who want intact dogs to show, for performance, to raise for autistic children (not covered as a service dog by the way) or just for health reasons are not all breeders. Indeed, the vast number of people who show dogs have never and will never breed a dog. But Boks continues to call the dog show people breeders.
Should people with intact dogs pay a higher licensing fee. There's no particularly good reason for it but if it would mean that AS would be out there picking up the roaming dogs, it is worth it.
What we should do is concentrate on licensing and identifying dogs. And you can't do that when you treat a large part of the community like criminals.
I have left cats out because everyone knows that these laws really affect only dogs. But cats are the biggest part of the problem. Boks agrees that TNR is the best and only way to manage this issue. And what has he done to institute that. Nothing.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
LAGUNA WOODS MEETING ON MARCH 18th
Don't forget that the Laguna Woods City Council meeting is this Wednesday at 2:00 pm. The City Council has been particularly unwilling to meet with their constituents to discuss this issue. Although it is hard to imagine the Council taking definitive action before they replace the member who died earlier, they are being pushed hard by Judie Mancuso. The City Manager recently told someone she is not involved; she is just their 'guest'.
You will be hearing more in the coming weeks about building the CDOC Legal Fund which will do more than just fund the LA City lawsuit. Again, here is a community that is considering an ordinance for which there is no rational argument. And as proposed, it has jail time for miscreants. This is a city where 80% of the resident live in Leisure World and are senior citizens.
We sympathize with the Laguna Woods residents who are upset with loose animals on their yards. But the answer to that is enforcing leash laws; not requiring surgery.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Ed Boks Cancels SN Vouchers
UPDATE ON SB 250 "The Responsible Pet Act"
SB 250 was heard and passed in the California Senate Local Government committee. The author spoke to the idealogy that SB 250 represents the $250 million a year that California spends on impounds and euthanasia (thus suggesting that the state could save this amount of $$ if his bill passes) and then turned the microphone over to his supporters. Once again, the supporters spoke about their concerns regarding the number of animals in the shelters and the euthanasia costs. There was nothing about how this bill was going to make more owners responsible. And even though the audience was constantly being told that this is NOT a mandatory spay/neuter bill every single pro-SB 250 speaker exaulted the idea of mandatory spay/neuter. Not once was there any point that voluntary spay/neuter and education can also accomplish a decline in impounds and euthanasia as shown by actual shelter numbers over the last decade.
Speaking in opposition was a coalition of AKC/CDOC/NAIA/SaveOurDogs. PetPac also had a representative speak. The opposition dealt with the concept that punitive and coercive measures do not encourage compliance with the law. In fact, the opposite is true and more owners go "underground" rather than risk the penalty. The ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT OF DOGS... FOREVER was presented but appeared to be ignored by the members of the Committtee. Instead of dealing with any of our concerns, the committee chair, Senator Wiggins offered a set of amendments that basically eliminated the "laundry list" of infractions that could be punished by mandatory spay/neuter and substitute those she thought most egregious. HOWEVER THE HEART OF THE BILL REMAINS THE SAME-- get a citation and the penalty is mandatory sterilization.
PERSONAL OPINION: I will give Senator Florez the credit that SB 250 is not AB 1634. In the original version of AB 1634, all dogs and cats in the state of California were required to be sterilized unless met with one of several (albeit confusing) exemptions. In the final versions of AB 1634, a pet could be left intact but by doing so, the owner was subjected to a new set of penalties. In other words, the same infractions were punishible by a different set of penalties with the "third strike" being mandated sterilization. SB 250 follows current state law through the requirement that all dogs must be licensed (of course, there is less than 15% average compliance in the State for this law) and that intact dogs must be licensed at a higher rate (as a way to encourage sterilization). In AB 1634, it basically became a secondary crime to have an intact animal. Senator Florez is emphasizing that having an intact pet is not a violation unless the intact pet is subject to a violation. And what basically makes it not the final version of AB 1634 is that the penalty of mandated sterilization happens on the FIRST STRIKE and you're completely out of intact dogs FOREVER. It is a lifetime penalty for a one-time infraction.
Laura Finco
CDOC Communications
SB 250 was heard and passed in the California Senate Local Government committee. The author spoke to the idealogy that SB 250 represents the $250 million a year that California spends on impounds and euthanasia (thus suggesting that the state could save this amount of $$ if his bill passes) and then turned the microphone over to his supporters. Once again, the supporters spoke about their concerns regarding the number of animals in the shelters and the euthanasia costs. There was nothing about how this bill was going to make more owners responsible. And even though the audience was constantly being told that this is NOT a mandatory spay/neuter bill every single pro-SB 250 speaker exaulted the idea of mandatory spay/neuter. Not once was there any point that voluntary spay/neuter and education can also accomplish a decline in impounds and euthanasia as shown by actual shelter numbers over the last decade.
Speaking in opposition was a coalition of AKC/CDOC/NAIA/SaveOurDogs. PetPac also had a representative speak. The opposition dealt with the concept that punitive and coercive measures do not encourage compliance with the law. In fact, the opposite is true and more owners go "underground" rather than risk the penalty. The ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT OF DOGS... FOREVER was presented but appeared to be ignored by the members of the Committtee. Instead of dealing with any of our concerns, the committee chair, Senator Wiggins offered a set of amendments that basically eliminated the "laundry list" of infractions that could be punished by mandatory spay/neuter and substitute those she thought most egregious. HOWEVER THE HEART OF THE BILL REMAINS THE SAME-- get a citation and the penalty is mandatory sterilization.
PERSONAL OPINION: I will give Senator Florez the credit that SB 250 is not AB 1634. In the original version of AB 1634, all dogs and cats in the state of California were required to be sterilized unless met with one of several (albeit confusing) exemptions. In the final versions of AB 1634, a pet could be left intact but by doing so, the owner was subjected to a new set of penalties. In other words, the same infractions were punishible by a different set of penalties with the "third strike" being mandated sterilization. SB 250 follows current state law through the requirement that all dogs must be licensed (of course, there is less than 15% average compliance in the State for this law) and that intact dogs must be licensed at a higher rate (as a way to encourage sterilization). In AB 1634, it basically became a secondary crime to have an intact animal. Senator Florez is emphasizing that having an intact pet is not a violation unless the intact pet is subject to a violation. And what basically makes it not the final version of AB 1634 is that the penalty of mandated sterilization happens on the FIRST STRIKE and you're completely out of intact dogs FOREVER. It is a lifetime penalty for a one-time infraction.
Laura Finco
CDOC Communications
Monday, March 9, 2009
Bill Bruce
UPDATE ON SB 250 "The Responsible Pet Act"
SB 250 was heard and passed in the California Senate Local Government committee. The author spoke to the idealogy that SB 250 represents the $250 million a year that California spends on impounds and euthanasia (thus suggesting that the state could save this amount of $$ if his bill passes) and then turned the microphone over to his supporters. Once again, the supporters spoke about their concerns regarding the number of animals in the shelters and the euthanasia costs. There was nothing about how this bill was going to make more owners responsible. And even though the audience was constantly being told that this is NOT a mandatory spay/neuter bill every single pro-SB 250 speaker exaulted the idea of mandatory spay/neuter. Not once was there any point that voluntary spay/neuter and education can also accomplish a decline in impounds and euthanasia as shown by actual shelter numbers over the last decade.
Speaking in opposition was a coalition of AKC/CDOC/NAIA/SaveOurDogs. PetPac also had a representative speak. The opposition dealt with the concept that punitive and coercive measures do not encourage compliance with the law. In fact, the opposite is true and more owners go "underground" rather than risk the penalty. The ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT OF DOGS... FOREVER was presented but appeared to be ignored by the members of the Committtee. Instead of dealing with any of our concerns, the committee chair, Senator Wiggins offered a set of amendments that basically eliminated the "laundry list" of infractions that could be punished by mandatory spay/neuter and substitute those she thought most egregious. HOWEVER THE HEART OF THE BILL REMAINS THE SAME-- get a citation and the penalty is mandatory sterilization.
PERSONAL OPINION: I will give Senator Florez the credit that SB 250 is not AB 1634. In the original version of AB 1634, all dogs and cats in the state of California were required to be sterilized unless met with one of several (albeit confusing) exemptions. In the final versions of AB 1634, a pet could be left intact but by doing so, the owner was subjected to a new set of penalties. In other words, the same infractions were punishible by a different set of penalties with the "third strike" being mandated sterilization. SB 250 follows current state law through the requirement that all dogs must be licensed (of course, there is less than 15% average compliance in the State for this law) and that intact dogs must be licensed at a higher rate (as a way to encourage sterilization). In AB 1634, it basically became a secondary crime to have an intact animal. Senator Florez is emphasizing that having an intact pet is not a violation unless the intact pet is subject to a violation. And what basically makes it not the final version of AB 1634 is that the penalty of mandated sterilization happens on the FIRST STRIKE and you're completely out of intact dogs FOREVER. It is a lifetime penalty for a one-time infraction.
Laura Finco
CDOC Communications
SB 250 was heard and passed in the California Senate Local Government committee. The author spoke to the idealogy that SB 250 represents the $250 million a year that California spends on impounds and euthanasia (thus suggesting that the state could save this amount of $$ if his bill passes) and then turned the microphone over to his supporters. Once again, the supporters spoke about their concerns regarding the number of animals in the shelters and the euthanasia costs. There was nothing about how this bill was going to make more owners responsible. And even though the audience was constantly being told that this is NOT a mandatory spay/neuter bill every single pro-SB 250 speaker exaulted the idea of mandatory spay/neuter. Not once was there any point that voluntary spay/neuter and education can also accomplish a decline in impounds and euthanasia as shown by actual shelter numbers over the last decade.
Speaking in opposition was a coalition of AKC/CDOC/NAIA/SaveOurDogs. PetPac also had a representative speak. The opposition dealt with the concept that punitive and coercive measures do not encourage compliance with the law. In fact, the opposite is true and more owners go "underground" rather than risk the penalty. The ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT OF DOGS... FOREVER was presented but appeared to be ignored by the members of the Committtee. Instead of dealing with any of our concerns, the committee chair, Senator Wiggins offered a set of amendments that basically eliminated the "laundry list" of infractions that could be punished by mandatory spay/neuter and substitute those she thought most egregious. HOWEVER THE HEART OF THE BILL REMAINS THE SAME-- get a citation and the penalty is mandatory sterilization.
PERSONAL OPINION: I will give Senator Florez the credit that SB 250 is not AB 1634. In the original version of AB 1634, all dogs and cats in the state of California were required to be sterilized unless met with one of several (albeit confusing) exemptions. In the final versions of AB 1634, a pet could be left intact but by doing so, the owner was subjected to a new set of penalties. In other words, the same infractions were punishible by a different set of penalties with the "third strike" being mandated sterilization. SB 250 follows current state law through the requirement that all dogs must be licensed (of course, there is less than 15% average compliance in the State for this law) and that intact dogs must be licensed at a higher rate (as a way to encourage sterilization). In AB 1634, it basically became a secondary crime to have an intact animal. Senator Florez is emphasizing that having an intact pet is not a violation unless the intact pet is subject to a violation. And what basically makes it not the final version of AB 1634 is that the penalty of mandated sterilization happens on the FIRST STRIKE and you're completely out of intact dogs FOREVER. It is a lifetime penalty for a one-time infraction.
Laura Finco
CDOC Communications
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
